Military Force

ORLANDO, FLA. -- Now that Iraqis have turned out in droves for a seemingly fair vote to establish a legislature, the situation begs for strategic clarity. After all, the self-restraint that insurgents practiced during the election will pass. If Iraq is to have a chance for sanity and calm, the global community will need to muster much more gumption. I would like to see President Bush and other leaders who talk about security and stability in Iraq go big in terms of their plans to help that country.

In reference the events of April 19, in which an explosion in Iraq killed at least 30 people, according to media accounts, it brought much sorrow to my heart. In my opinion, it could have been avoided if President Barack Obama had not withdrawn all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, which was obviously a political ploy to please the general public in order to strengthen his position in the upcoming election of 2012. I strongly believed the U.S. should maintain a standing military force in Iraq to assure that a people's democracy would remain in operation there to prevent civil wars, and to eliminate the creeping influence of Iran, al Qaida, and the Taliban.

WASHINGTON -- The United States announced yesterday that NATO has approved plans for the use of military force in the Kosovo crisis.The announcement was intended to push President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia to end the offensive against ethnic Albanians in the Serbian province of Kosovo."

For op-ed writer Robert O. Freedman, it's not a question of if Israel is to launch an attack on Iran, but when ("Is reelection driving Obama's Israel policy?" March 7). I am tired of the hawks' view that every Middle Eastern episode of tension can be solved by military force. True, Iran has said it would "wipe Israel off the map. " But this talk - absurd on the face of it - sounds like the posturing of a street corner punk. Iran surely knows that any attack on Israel would be suicidal because Israel could strike back with overwhelming military force, and perhaps with nuclear weapons.

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council authorized military force yesterday to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims of unrelentingly vicious fighting in the former Yugoslavia.The move, adopted with China, India and Zimbabwe abstaining, called on "all states to take . . . all measures necessary" to deliver the aid in coordination with the United Nations.Spurred by horrifying accounts of suffering and death in detention camps, it was accompanied by broad condemnation of the practice of "ethnic cleansing," uprooting tens of thousands of Muslims and Croatians, and a second resolution launching a war-crimes investigation.

LONDON -- Authorizing the use of his military forces, British Prime Minister Tony Blair backed the United States in launching air attacks on Iraq last night.Calling Saddam Hussein "a serial breaker of promises," Blair laid blame for the attack on the Iraqi leader, who he said reneged on international agreements made at the end of the Persian Gulf war."There is no realistic alternative to military force," a grim-faced Blair said as he stood outside his 10 Downing Street residence and announced the start of Operation Desert Fox."

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Barbara Lee did not come easily to the decision that made her the lone member of either the House or Senate to oppose President Bush's plan to use military force in retaliation for last week's terrorist attacks. The California Democrat tearfully told her colleagues Friday night that she shared their anger at the calculated murder of thousands of innocent civilians. Like them, she said, she was filled with sorrow for the victims and their loved ones. "Only the most foolish and the most callous would not understand the grief that has really gripped our people and millions across the world," Lee said during debate on the resolution endorsing sweeping powers for the president to strike back.

Regarding your article "Obama: Troops out of Iraq by Dec 31, 2011" (Oct. ), it shows of poor judgment on President Obama's part to make such a decision when it could be interpreted as a political campaign ploy for the 2012 election. I think the U.S. should maintain a standing military force in Iraq just as we did - and still do - in Japan, Germany and South Korea to assure those peoples of our support for their democracies. A permanent military presence would also help prevent another civil war in Iraq and counter the influence of Iran, al-Qaida and the Taliban.

WASHINGTON -- One of the Senate's most respected Republican statesmen, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, urged the incoming Clinton administration Thursday to send U.S. troops to quell the Serbian-sponsored civil war in Bosnia.Perhaps "urge" is too weak a word. "Goaded" may be more like it. For as Mr. Lugar proposed this dramatic military intervention, he questioned whether the Clinton foreign policy team, lead by Secretary of State Warren Christopher, had the guts ever to use military force.

For op-ed writer Robert O. Freedman, it's not a question of if Israel is to launch an attack on Iran, but when ("Is reelection driving Obama's Israel policy?" March 7). I am tired of the hawks' view that every Middle Eastern episode of tension can be solved by military force. True, Iran has said it would "wipe Israel off the map. " But this talk - absurd on the face of it - sounds like the posturing of a street corner punk. Iran surely knows that any attack on Israel would be suicidal because Israel could strike back with overwhelming military force, and perhaps with nuclear weapons.

In reference to The Sun's editorial regarding the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq ("Home for Christmas," Dec. 25) and speaking as a veteran of five years in WWII and later recalled for three more in Korea, I am in complete disagreement with President Barack Obama's political greedy, unwise and short-sighted decision in withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 regardless of how they got there. Instead, I strongly believe that the U.S. should have maintained a strong standing military force in Iraq just as we did and still do in Japan, Germany and South Korea to assure that democracy remains in operation for the whole world to behold.

Regarding your article "Obama: Troops out of Iraq by Dec 31, 2011" (Oct. ), it shows of poor judgment on President Obama's part to make such a decision when it could be interpreted as a political campaign ploy for the 2012 election. I think the U.S. should maintain a standing military force in Iraq just as we did - and still do - in Japan, Germany and South Korea to assure those peoples of our support for their democracies. A permanent military presence would also help prevent another civil war in Iraq and counter the influence of Iran, al-Qaida and the Taliban.

First I saw the headline detailing a strike on a military base ("5 U.S. soldiers killed in strike on Baghdad base," June 7) and then on the following page a warning that a decade-long conflict may needed to be extended ("Gates: Afghan job not done"). What a juxtaposition for two foreign policy disasters: Soldiers are still dying in Iraq, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates thinks it is wise to continue the longest war in U.S. history. Why do the powerbrokers continue the misguided policies which led to two injudicious invasions?

Senator Barbara Mikulski has yet to publicize or state her position on U.S. military involvement in Libya. Considering her "No" vote on use of military force in Iraq in 2002 and her reliably consistent Democratic party line voting, one can only assume she is dodging the issue. But remaining mute is not why Maryland voters pay her the big taxpayer bucks, benefits and pension. It is an insult to our armed forces that Senator Mikulski has time to publish a press release on her website glorifying taxpayer largess of $10,331 to bring broadband Internet access to an elementary school.

When the Pasha of Tripoli authorized Barbary pirates to hold ships and crews of the infant United States for ransom in the early nineteenth century, President Thomas Jefferson responded by ordering the U.S. Navy to shell his capital, then he sent in the Marines. However, that may not be the wisest course for the U.S. regarding the current situation in Libya, where the aging dictator Moammar Gadhafi is locked in a desperate bid to retain power in the face of an armed popular uprising.

Today's generation of soldiers grew up on the Internet, X-Boxes, text messaging, Web cams, multiplayer gaming, social networks, iPhones and Google Maps. However, when we got to Iraq and Afghanistan, we found that military networks were slower than commercial wireless networks. Sure, forward operating bases had networked computers, and troops in the field had advanced radios and spotty satellite service - but a mobile, Internet-based network simply didn't exist. As a result, it seemed that we couldn't make the best use of the equipment that we had. While on patrol, we couldn't share intelligence instantly with troops, or access maps and lists of local allies and insurgents.

THERE has been a spate of commentary recently over the use of American military force to deal with the vexing problems of an untidy post-Cold War world.The military has been criticized for being too reluctant to use force. In a recent editorial, for example, the New York Times suggested that the military has a "no can do" attitude.The editorial even reached back to the famous exchange between President Lincoln and Gen. McClellan during the Civil War.Lincoln, frustrated with McClellan's slowness in engaging the enemy, told him, "If you don't want to use the Army, I should like to borrow it for a while."

First I saw the headline detailing a strike on a military base ("5 U.S. soldiers killed in strike on Baghdad base," June 7) and then on the following page a warning that a decade-long conflict may needed to be extended ("Gates: Afghan job not done"). What a juxtaposition for two foreign policy disasters: Soldiers are still dying in Iraq, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates thinks it is wise to continue the longest war in U.S. history. Why do the powerbrokers continue the misguided policies which led to two injudicious invasions?

WASHINGTON -- Humbled by America's bloody experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is looking ahead with rising concern to a decade of widening terrorism and insurgency, new conflicts in overcrowded, failing states, and the near certainty that additional nations or terrorist or criminal gangs will obtain nuclear weapons. The United States is less prepared to meet these problems than at any time in the past decade, according to senior U.S. strategists and outside analysts.

ORLANDO, FLA. -- Now that Iraqis have turned out in droves for a seemingly fair vote to establish a legislature, the situation begs for strategic clarity. After all, the self-restraint that insurgents practiced during the election will pass. If Iraq is to have a chance for sanity and calm, the global community will need to muster much more gumption. I would like to see President Bush and other leaders who talk about security and stability in Iraq go big in terms of their plans to help that country.